The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

Pedro[edit]

(96/1/2); ended 08:21, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Pedro (talk · contribs) - Face it, guys. We all know England are going to lose the Rugby World Cup. I feel so sorry for Pedro, he'll be so cut when my country owns his. As some sort of compensation, here's an RfA nom! Pedro is a kickass vandalfighter, with 90 AIV reports. He also frequents ANI, the help desk, and UAA. On top of that, he has done some article work, and his talk page edit count indicates a bit of article collaboration as well. Pedro is an excellent candidate (allbeit a pom), and I'm sure the Australian editors will agree that the least we could do considering he's gonna get owned in the Rugby World Cup is give him adminship. Ladies and gentlemen, Pedro! Dihydrogen Monoxide 02:00, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nomination by Ryan Postlethwaite - Well, what can I say? Pedro has come on leeps and bounds since his first RfA. At that point, I opposed, I just didn't think he was ready or had a full grasp of how things worked, well, I'm pleased to say he's worked his ass off since then and is now a great wikipedian. He's very active on the help desk showing a tendency to help newcomers - a great attribute for any aspiring administrator who must not appear to bite. He's a great AfD contributor giving firm policy reasons for his verdict on articles, he's do a great job at closing these. During vandal fighting, he always warns appropriately after reverting giving users every effort to change their ways before receiving a block. His mainspace work is mainly gnomish tasks, but hell - if we didn't have someone doing that, we'd be far less credable. All in all, I feel Pedro is definately suited to being an admin, and will be an asset to the team. I ask that you support this candidate so we can give him the tools. Ryan Postlethwaite 12:19, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nomination by Maxim — I was consdering nominating Pedro, and I looked though your contributions, etc, etc., doing all the steps that a prospective nominator does. But I checked his talkpage last. And I was beaten once again. Not letting my notes go to waste, I'm co-nominating. I was impressed; Pedro is a helpful user at the help desk, and he provides useful insight at AfD. Mainspace-wise, Pedro improves some articles, too, as well as properly reverts and warn vandals. He has authored 2 DYKs. His contributions are nicely balanced, and he is a productive user who deserves the tools, and we would from Pedro being a sysop. Maxim(talk) 14:19, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nomintaion by The Random Editor - Ladies, and Gentlemen, Boys and Girls of all ages, I proudly present for discussion, Pedro. Interestingly enough, I originally came across Pedro at WP:RFA. Ever since then, I have been watching him and his edits across Wikipedia. Pedro intially joined Wikipedia back in July 2006, so for those of you with experience concerns that should help expel them. He has already been very active in administrator noticeboards such as Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, and the reform of WP:RFA system where on it's talk page at WT:RFA he has close to 110 edits. I could honestly go on and on about why Pedro should be promoted, but insteading of boring you with my overtly long speech, I will simply cut to the chase. So for your consideration here is Pedro!!! --Thε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 19:47, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nomination by Politics rule - It is with great honor I can Co-nominate Pedro. I first met Pedro during his first RFA. I believed then, and I still do, that he deserves to be an admin. Pedro has been with us since July 2006, and since then has amassed over 4500 edits, and many edits to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. I am very outspoken, so I will get to the point, Pedro is a good editor who deserves to be an admin. So it is with great honor that I am able to help present Pedro! PatPolitics rule! 22:23, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nomination by Hirohisat - Just in time. I first saw Pedro on Rfa a few months ago, and was very impressed by his comments, which showed his well understanding of the policies. Although not much of a mainspace contributer, with over 4500 edits (just to let you know), he has tons (really, tons) of contributions against vandalism with a fairly large number to AIV. Look through his contributions, and you'll see his excellent work. It is with great honor to co-nom Pedro. --Hirohisat Kiwi 08:17, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: With thanks to my nominators I accept. Pedro |  Chat  08:05, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Questions for the candidate[edit]

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: Per my previous RFA my main area of work would be WP:CSD. My "preferences" edit count indicates a difference from the Interiot tool of about 300. Editors may wish to peruse User:Pedro/CSD errors. This is based on the number of "advise user of SD tag" comments I have made, and indeed where that tag was wrong. I monitor these things purely to ensure my understanding of policy is correct. As far as I am aware other than the three items indicated there, the only other CSD tag I applied that was not speedied was declined by the relevant admin and was subsequently deleted via a prod. Although CSD is becoming well attended there are still often backlogs. I firmly believe that attack and copy-vio pages need removing quickly. I also believe that the spirit not the letter of WP:BITE works here as well. When someone has spent an hour creating an article about their upcoming band it is dispiriting to see it deleted. If it then hangs around with an sd tage for two hours (whilst the editor continues to amplify it) and is then deleted it must be far more dispiriting. Better to remove content that is clearly not right for Wikipedia yet retain the editor. The other area would be WP:AIV. Although I feel that few backlogs exist here I believe that I can certainly keep it tip top. From probably 80 (my count says 90 but there will be times I missed a sig or ammended an entry) reports not a single one has been declined by the blocking admin. I do beleive blocks are preventative. When not sure I prefer to wait or consult. This may help - an article was speedied twice, I tried to give advice to the editor but was ignored and he reposted the article under a marginally different title - see User talk:Adeiteam for the works. I approached User:NawlinWiki for advice, as I was not keen to go to AIV as some time had passed since the contribution, however I did feel that maybe a block might have been in order due to the nature of it, and appearing to be a single purpose account. The end result was a level four warning, and I agreed that this was probably best. I have also worked at the help desk, and there have been some times where the admin buttons could also have helped. There are some great admins already over there, so this would purely be supporting them and the non administrator editors to perform mop tasks.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: At my last RFA there was genuine concern about my lack of article writing. I said at the time, and still maintain, that I am not a great article writer. I do however believe that some article writing or contribution to articles is important to understand the admin role, and of course Wikipedia is built on articles! Since my last RFA I have had two "did you know" articles - now let's be honest these are hardly FA or even GA works, but they are encyclopedic and they re-affirm my (then new) belief that admins must have some experience in the front end as well as the back end. I have also expanded and worked on a number of other articles, mainly covered by wiki project England. Of course my main contribution has still been vandal reversion, work at XFD and basically keeping the place clean. Dull, I know, but as we near 2,000,000 articles and the 8th most visited internet site we must be honest to ourselves and acknowledge (IMHO) that janitors are as needed as those fantastic article writers and researchers who create our best work. In addition, I have recently started at the help desk - as I now feel my knowledge of policy and procedure are sound I am delighted to contribute there. We must remember that editors asking questions there are potential administrators, 'crats or stewards of this project and must be given the respect and time they deserve.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: Being regularly active at CSD I get a reasonable number of where has my page gone questions. I also get the odd blanking or "Pedro is a *x*y*x" instead of my user page. If editors are willing to discuss things I'm all ears (or user talk pages ears!). If not then WP:TEA helps if it bothers me (which it doesn't to be honest) and trying to keep WP:DFTT in mind is also a winner. In sum, why get stressed? Anyone with something genuinely positive to contribute will meet half (three quarters/ sevent eights) way, and it can be discussed and resolved. Those not prepared to discuss, consulte and find consensus are generally not the kind of Wikipedians who will further this work.

Questions from Matthew

4. What is your opinion of IAR and when do you believe it should be exercised?
A.1) WP:WIARM refers. 2) WP:CCC refers. In the early days IAR had a lot more value. These days it has less, but is still valuable. Rule is semantic. The five pilllars are rules. Increasingly as Wikipedia develops they become more important whereas we can recognise that other ideas may change. We all put in our free time for the end game of providing the sum of all human knowledge. What is worthwhile in that summation is, of course, hotly debated. But if we do not have a set of guidelines and precedents in how that knowledge is presented then this project will fall apart. So whilst IAR is valuable in keeping the fluidity of this work, without reference to it's mannner of presentation to the end user it will become destructive not constructive.
5. Could you please show me an example of article development you have participated in?
A.Itchen Navigation, Bishopstoke, Twyford School and Talk:English people. My main space entries are weak in comparison to many others. However I believe I have an understanding of encyclopedic content that would help me use administrator tools effectivley as required.
6. When is somebody classed as a vandal and what measures would you take to stop a vandal (please specify block lengths, etc.)
A.1) Allmost all contributions should be seen as good faith and/or tests on the first edit. Sticking "cock" into an article is vandalism in the communities' eyes but equally a chance to greet a new member. Deletion on the first and indeed second edit is not vandalism. Repetition is the key. We have recently had a bug issue with regards to warning on IP addresses and things like that must be considered. A block is ideal with an IP or username repeatedly editing an article or realted article(s) and they are active. In most other cases a block could be punitive - somthing we should steer clear of. It is important to remember that most vandals to Wikipedia are "hit and run" - a reprimand will often stop vandalism. Should it not be sufficent to just warn then a wise decision should be made, based on such things as editing patern, length of editing, user name, articles edited and many more. A perceived vandal is an opportunity to greet a new editor. With regard to block lengths this is almost impossible to answer without specifics. Generaly however, the kay point is that all blocks must be done to prevent harm. Indef blocking of usernames should only be done when an account is clearly single purpose and obviously not going to help this work. For most other cases blocks of 24 hours or less are more appropriae.

Optional questions from Eddie:

7. Could you provide a link to an edit conflict in which you were involved?
A.[1] on English people removed for the second time and then discussed here. Although conflicts are a part of wikipedia (and could well be argued to make it stronger) I felt that this had a hidden agenda hence my double reversion.
8. What do you think of Category:Wikipedia administrators open to recall?
A. No Issues. I would be happy to add my name should this current request be approved by the community.

Essay question from JayHenry:

9. Some people feel that RFA has become ridiculously cliquey. Discuss.
A.Hi JayHenry. Well, that's a goodie - though I did note your edit summary [2].There are two approaches to this essay at this time. Given your edit summary and that fact that you asked the question at my RfA one interpretation could be "You've got six co-noms which has slightly annoyed some people and you're allways round RFA - how does that affect your RfA". The other option is the more wider issue of RfA "buddies" - e.g. a perhaps unspoken sense of "!vote for me I'll !vote for you", or a general "we're all out to get adminship and by hanging around in the same gang any individual will better their chances".
So let me deal with my situation, briefly, first. Six co-noms may well look like "bad form" - however I wasn't aware we were playing cricket. This is a serious process to ask to gain tools that require trust to be granted. If six editors wish to put in nomination statements then that is really up to them. I did not solicit them - indeed as explained below three people who had offered to nominate prior to the creation of this RfA did not do so. The thrust would be is this a bad thing ? To gain adminship for reasons of it's own is something I find morally wrong. I want a couple of buttons to help out further. I know I can be trusted, the point of RFA is for the community to decide that based on my contributions I am trustworthy. Note, I say based on my contributions. Every RFA contains the words If you are unfamiliar with the nominee.... There is a potential here, following the instructions as laid out, to say "Oh well, I do know them, so I don't need to review their contribution history.". This is a bad thing. However human nature is human nature. If we see a name at RfA that we have had positive personal interaction with regularly is there harm in supporting without reviewing contributions? I think yes, but that does not mean everyone feels the same. And indeed I have a belly button. Would I perhaps "overlook" a minor issue in the contrib. history if I had other positive dealings? Of course I would. I'd be a liar to say otherwise.
To move out to the bigger picture; if there is a clique is this a bad thing? On the face it, of course a clique is bad. However we are a community, and as such we will act like one. The fundamental strength of Wikipedia is collaboration. And with collaboration comes community, and with community comes closer ties between the individuals of that community. And there lies the rub. There must be no cabal. We must support or oppose (and I'm talking about everything here XFD, FPC, RFA etc.) based on our own opinion, not that of others. This is essential to our integrity.
But how one's opinion is formed may well be through interaction with others rather than cold logic. And this is good. Why? Because we can change our minds, because we can look at the view of our peers and colleagues, because we can move view point, because we respect collaboration, diversity and others. So, whilst a clique is undesirable, a cabal unacceptable, collaboration and mutual respect can only be positive. It is what makes this work so good, and why we are all proud to be Wikipedians. Pedro |  Chat  08:00, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

General comments[edit]

RfAs for this user:

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. Wikipedia policies regarding civility still apply during RFA. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Pedro before commenting.

Discussion[edit]

Support

  1. Strong support as co-nom. Ryan Postlethwaite 08:22, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Naturally. If Pedro is to admin, then Wikipedia is to better Wikipedia. Makes no sense... By the way - got enough co-noms Pedro? ;) -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 08:23, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Strong support as co-nom. --Hirohisat Kiwi 08:27, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Pedro has learned a lot since his previous RfA, and he is definitely ready to take on all administrator duties. Sebi [talk] 08:27, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Dang, that's a lot of co-nominations! (say she with an envious tone because she'd like to be one) :) Phaedriel - 08:30, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Nothing compared to your request Phaedriel :) 10 co-noms and 271 supports counted... --DarkFalls talk 08:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Glad to see you dumped Husond in his co-nom :) --DarkFalls talk 08:36, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I hope is break was very relaxing as I don't think he'll be impressed.... Pedro |  Chat  08:40, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Strong Support (edit conflict) I have been waiting for this... Jmlk17 08:37, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Hopefully I beat some noms support. Dihydrogen Monoxide 08:39, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Delightful nom Dihydrogen... Of course everyone knows England will get the wooden spoon. --DarkFalls talk 08:43, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Dihydrogen, remind me again who the World Cup holders are? — iridescent (talk to me!) 08:48, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Irisdescent, remind me again what rank England is in the RWC? Was it #7? And Australia's #2 right? --DarkFalls talk 09:14, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support Ordinarily I'd oppose due to a lack of experience with articles - I've always believed sysops shouldn't have the power to delete other editors' contributions until they realise for themselves how hard it is sticking to policy all the time - but I think every decision you've made demonstrates you're trustworthy & do have a clear understanding of policy — iridescent (talk to me!) 08:46, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support It is time to give this user the mop. A great editor as well. --Siva1979Talk to me 09:00, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support - super job. Good luck. The Rambling Man 09:10, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Strong Support - of course! I see this guy's name all over the place! Including giving the most excellent advice on people's RfAs. Everything looks fine. He knows what he's doing. A very fine candidate. Honestly, a few weeks ago, I actually did think Pedro was an admin. :-) Lradrama 09:20, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support Dang Skippy! Dfrg.msc 09:31, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support Why not? --Chris  G  10:09, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support great noms, great user who goes above and beyond the call of duty to AGF, be civil, and help others. Mainspace, so what... an admin who knows policy and diplomacy is a great asset to the community. Plus, with Napoleon Dynamite, how can I not !vote for Pedro?! :) ~Eliz81(C) 10:38, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support - civil and helpful editor with sufficient experience. Addhoc 10:45, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support - good answers, especially to question 1. The WP experience shows an excellent understanding of policy. The mainspace count could do with work but there is nothing to suggest this is someone who can't spot good or bad content or will get an itchy trigger finger with the deletion buttons. Euryalus 10:50, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Si, claro! - FayssalF - Wiki me up® 11:17, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support Looks a goodie. --Dweller 11:19, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Strong Support As co-nom. Darn, a lot of people beat me! PatPolitics rule! 12:12, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support - As co-nom. Ooooh, Husond going to be mad when he sees you left him in the dust. --Thε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 13:13, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support as I did last time. But I am mildly nauseated by the number of co-noms, the supporters that support him only because he makes comments at rfa (although I do agree he that he does do his work when he comments), and the general bonhomie, desk-thumping and back-patting orgy that we seem to be having here. This is not some popularity contest. There is already a trend at RfA to blindly vote when there is a good set of nominators, with the reasoning "If such good nominators found him suitable for the job, he must be." We don't need any more of that silliness. Anyway, none of this is Pedro's fault; it's the others should have more sense. I'd be surprised if more than half of the supporters of this RfA actually go through Pedro's contributions instead of just "running into him often at RfA" or seeing "his name pop up all over the place" or better yet "I trust the nominators". - TwoOars (Rev) 13:24, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    But I do trust the nominators. What's the issue? They are all people with experience at RfA, who know what it takes to make a good admin. WaltonOne 17:25, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It doesn't (or shouldn't) matter who the nominators are. The candidate should be assessed based only on his or her own edit history. And the RfA commentators should do their work, actually going through the contributions. If we are going to just support a candidate because we "trust the nominator", we might as well do away with this entire farce called RfA. Let us get the bureaucrats (whom we all trust apparently) to nominate and promote admins themselves and we can all go and do more useful things. Let us just assume that the nominators are doing all the checking for us and we trust the nominators, ergo, we trust the candidate. - TwoOars (Rev) 18:13, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support - I agree that all the co-noms are overkill, but I won't hold that against Pedro, who I have observed making consistently well thought out and helpful contributions to Wikipedia. I believe he'd be a fine admin.--Kubigula (talk) 13:31, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support, as I thought you were an admin. By the way, Dihydrogen Monoxide, first The Random Editor, and now Pedro! Your noms are awesome. J-ſtan TalkContribs 14:14, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support excellent editor, lots of experience. Melsaran (talk) 14:30, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support as before. I don't know Pedro but I see his good work all over the place. The one time I discussed something with him I was impressed with his attitude and civility. Much as I prefer a candidate with lots of articles under his belt, it's not a deal breaker in this case; he can be trusted with the mop. --Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 14:45, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support per nom Review of talk pages shows editor to be thoughtful, patient and insightful. Although main space edits could be higher, I believe the editor understands policy well enough to use the tools and has the temperament and common sense to avoid getting into difficulties. We cannot all be great writers. Yes, we are writing an encyclopedia. However, for the encyclopedia to be credible and useful, we must sometimes glean non constructive articles. He will help us do that. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 14:55, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support. OK, maybe more mainspace work would be nice, but I see zero chance of misusing the tools so I'm supporting. There's plenty of room for admins who can support the great article writers. Chaz Beckett 15:18, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support Kind and civil fellow, well-rounded experience -- the exact disposition needed in an admin. Xoloz 15:29, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Oppose Keeps dropping crumbs on the keyboard while editing Wikipedia. <-- That's what's gonna happen the next time you dump me along with my insanely boring and unsexy nomination. This time I'll support merely for the sake of your excellent qualifications for becoming an outstanding admin. Húsönd 15:57, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support - My interactions have always been positive, and I do not believe this user will misuse the tools. That said, Pedro knows well my feelings about multiple co-noms: frankly, it drives me nuts. I will not, however, allow the actions of other editors to influence my support !vote on this RfA. I will, again (as I have before) go on record against a ton of co-noms. I think one or two is about the max number I'd like to see. But I digress... as regards this RfA, of course I support Pedro - I trust him totally and think he'll do a damned fine job with the mop. I don't know why we'd punish anyone like that, but if he wants it, heaven help him, and give it to him. - Philippe | Talk 16:40, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Weak Support. The candidate's encyclopedia building contributions aren't particularly strong, but he has made an honest effort to create and (modestly) improve some articles. This effort, coupled with the candidate's other contributions to WP, is enough to merit admin status. Majoreditor 16:42, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Strong Support Pedro has always been kind and helpful at the Help Desk and his contributions attest to his keen understanding of policy. This comment on his last RfA definitely confirms that he is not out simply to get the tools, but has an honest interest in helping Wikipedia: "I have stated repeatedly this RfA should pass or fail on my contribution history alone, and whether it shows I am trustworthy with the tools, and whether I will get good use of them. I would encourage all editors in Support to consider if they have made those comments solely on popularity and if so switch to oppose or neutral. To pass RFA through popularity alone undermines this process, and will not further wikipedia." Bravo! Hersfold (t/a/c) 16:46, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support I can't think of a reason to oppose. Seems civil and has enough experience. -- GDonato (talk) 16:48, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support I figured I'd comment on the user, not the noms :P User always seems civil, does good CSD work, and, seems to work well with others. I see no reason not to trust this user SQL(Query Me!) 17:15, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Strong support fine user. Acalamari 17:22, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support - Pedro is exactly the kind of admin we want. Civil, communicative, thoughtful, with experience in a variety of areas. I supported him last time, and I believe he's proved time and time again that he is admin material. WaltonOne 17:25, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support I've been waiting for this. I've seen him help those less skilled at editing than himself and he's always polite--Phoenix 15 17:43, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support Experienced, level-headed; answers to questions show he understands policy and being an admin, at the same time he's not power-hungry. Also I have no problems with the myriad co-nominators. Roadmr (t|c) 18:07, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support in spite of the patently silly number of co-noms. Pedro is a good editor who will be an asset as an administrator. I must say I agree with much of what TwoOars said above though. Will (aka Wimt) 18:18, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support Mainspace edits vs RfA participation is a little unbalanced, in my opinion, but the vandal fighting and AfD participation show a need for the tools. Personally, I think the "requirements" for successful RfAs is getting ridiculous and I see no reason to oppose an editor that would most likely use the tools constructively. LaraLove♥ 18:32, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support he has been active in CSD - and his deleted edits show significant contribution there - I see no reason not to give him the mop. Buena suerte. Carlossuarez46 18:50, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support mainspace contributions are a bit thin but he should do fine as an admin, Pascal.Tesson 19:01, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support, thought he passed the last RfA. Wizardman 19:13, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support. Qualified candidate, no issues or concerns for me. Newyorkbrad 19:52, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Silliness over co-noms apart, six is ridiculous...I'm not wildly enthusiastic, but don't see compelling reasons as to why not. Moreschi Talk 19:58, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Weak Support - I went back and forth on this for a while in my mind. This RFA with all of its co-noms is a bit jarring, and I don't feel confident in his mainspace contributions. However, I think Pedro will improve Wikipedia overall, rather than damaging it.--Danaman5 20:01, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support -- This user will apply the tools thoughtfully, and intelligently. In a perfect world, everyone should have tools and they should only be taken away because of misuse. Unfortunately, we can't do that because of the damage that is possible, so we have to settle for this instead. Opposing because there were too many co-nominations is silly, and requiring some arbitrary level of mainspace writing for adminship seems contrary to the spirit of adminship -- namely, that it's no big deal and everyone should have tools. Opposes for reasons totally unrelated to actual use of the tools seem contrary to this ideal. --Haemo 20:23, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support Having personally poked at this guy, I've seen how he can remain civil and rational. More importantly his signature is kewl, dood. the_undertow talk 20:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support Pedro will definately make a good admin. Captain panda 20:42, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Strong Support--U.S.A. (talk contribs) 20:57, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Strong Support Per nom. Pedro has been an invaluable to Wikipedia itself, and sincerely deserves the mop by now.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Perfect Proposal (talk • contribs) 21:35, 10 September 2007
    I think you forgot to sign. No worries, though. I've forgotten to sign tons of times.--U.S.A. (talk contribs) 21:37, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I've tagged it.--U.S.A. (talk contribs) 21:47, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Ach, why not? Seems to be ready and trustable. —AldeBaer 22:08, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  54. Support No serious concerns... ♠TomasBat 22:59, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support - Trustworthy and committed to the project. (!Vote for Pedro.) -- Jreferee (Talk) 23:03, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  56. !Vote for Pedro - trustworthy, user-friendly, and hard-working editor, as demonstrated by his excellent contributions. I strongly believe in the importance of quality mainspace editing for admin candidates, which this user admittedly lacks, but Pedro's other work neutralizes all of my concerns. --Boricuaeddie is now Agüeybaná 23:19, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support as a steady editor, no problems. I see co-noms as a strength. Bearian 23:47, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support - While during my RFA Pedro initially voted against me for handing out barnstars to a number of people (many of whom were frequenters of RFA's) which he had interpreted as canvasing support or possibly bribing editors for support, which he admitted wasn't assuming good faith as I hand out barnstars copiously to anyone who deserves them and I had been frequenting RFA's at the time a lot so I saw a lot of deserving editors. He eventually changed his opposition to neutral though, however a lot of people decided to oppose me thereafter basing their oppositions on his comments. I eventually withdrew my RFA due to the fact that I didn't want to become an administrator with anywhere below 80% support. Afterwards Pedro was very apologetic and I can't hold one incident against him while his vandal fighting and other activities are very different from that single incident. I'm therefore going to support his RFA because I don't believe that he will abuse the admin tools, though I do believe that he should work on assuming good faith in the future. I also have reservations about his almost 100% support of RFA's even with people who obviously aren't ready to have the admin tools. I also agree with other editors that Pedro must improve his Mainspace edits, This is an encyclopedia and vandal fighting is only a small fraction of the work that needs to be done. Most of Pedro's edits seem to be either vandalism fighting or RFA's. While vandalism fighting is important, Many of Pedro's RFA edits seem to be "moral supports" for people who clearly aren't ready for adminship, which in my opinion isn't very productive. I suppose that supporting people who don't have a snowballs chance in hell just for the sake of making them feel better knowing that they won't become administrator might sound like a nice thing to do, I do not believe that it is a good way to use ones time on Wikipedia. I believe that supports should only be provided if the supporter believes that 1. the individual in question is prepared to use the administrator tools and 2. the individual in question is unlikely to abuse such tools. I am offering my support for this candidate based on the aforementioned criteria. I believe that this user does indeed have enough experience to become administrator and I have no reason to believe that this user will abuse the administrator tools. Though this user does need to work on some aspects of his time spent on Wikipedia as well as attitudes towards other aspects, I see no reason why this can't be done as an administrator as the work which needs to be done isn't vast enough (in my opinion) to hinder his administrator abilities. While spending most of ones time on Vandalism fighting or RFA's isn't my ideal use of time on Wikipedia, though no doubt both are fairly important, I don't see how either could hinder his ability to work as an administrator. Wikidudeman (talk) 00:01, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow, that's one of the longest support statement's I've seen in an RfA.--U.S.A. (talk contribs) 02:11, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I've seen longer... --DarkFalls talk 06:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikidudeman, thank you. I shall certainly take all comments on board from this RfA, but your well reasoned and expanded argument is particularly appreciated - and not because of a support when I opposed you as detailed above, although that certainly demonstrates your good faith. I thank you for your time spent crafting this, and wether this RfA passes or fails I look forward to collaborating with yourself again in the future. Very Best. Pedro |  Chat  07:18, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It will definitely pass. Wikidudeman (talk) 13:54, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    (Response to Darkfalls)Yeah, that statement by Gurch is probraly the longest. This would be the second or third. Quite impressive.--U.S.A. (talk contribs) 11:17, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support. bibliomaniac15 15 years of trouble and general madness 00:37, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support, I actually had thought he was an admin already, but I've seen him edit in a number of places and they have always greatly benefitted Wikipedia. Wikipedia would greatly benefit with more users like him around. On a side note, I was about to make a "Vote for Pedro" reference before reading the discussion near the top. --Mr.crabby (Talk) 01:35, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support--Oxymoron83 05:28, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support since Pedro offers us his protection... but no more bloody co-noms please! 6 is absolutely farcical. ~ Riana ⁂ 06:38, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Technically, I haven't co-nommed yet ;) Dihydrogen Monoxide 06:41, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  63. support Good editor. Six co-noms is a bit excessive though. --Hdt83 Chat 07:13, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support, I should have watchlisted this page. But I don't like so many co-noms. @pple complain 08:42, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support - you winz the longest-nom-list award! Wow :) Still, great editor with a good knowledge of policy. Should be just fine! - Alison ☺ 10:21, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support (grudgingly). I have no reservations about Pedro's ability to a competent admin. That said I think the number of con-noms is ridiculous - it makes this process look like a popularity contest which we should be at pains to make sure it does not become. I have never read so many additional noms to learn so little more about a candidate. Guys - just support the candidate - feel free to use words like "strong" or such like if you wish to convey more than your usual level of support for an RfA candidate - but most of those "co-noms" could easily have been made down here and not up there. WjBscribe 11:19, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support ... he wasn't one already? (VOTE FOR PEDRO!) Kwsn(Ni!) 14:19, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support - Good answer, Pedro. I'm especially glad you reminded us that this is not a cricket match. I trust you to do a good job as an admin. Per WJBscribe, I'd like to serve a nice Filet-o-Fish sandwich to your co-noms, but that's not your fault ;) --JayHenry 16:43, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Strong support - Courteous, well-versed in policy and calm. Will make an excellent admin. Tim Vickers 17:25, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  70. But of course. — madman bum and angel 18:35, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support The candidate has obviously demonstrated a marked improvement on the issues brought up at the failed RFA. VanTucky Talk 21:58, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support. A highly dedicated user, will use the mop well. --Sharkface217 00:29, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Strong Support How are you not already an admin? This user is clearly an excellent contributor who is very familiar with Wikipedia policy. I think he will make a great admin. Wikipediarules2221 00:55, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support I routinely see thoughtful comments in front of Pedro's signature, and good counter-vandalism folks need bits.--Chaser - T 04:30, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support It frightens me to see so many co-noms, but hey, editor is fantatic. --Benchat 05:10, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Support. Perfectly fine number of mainspace edits (see discussion in "neutral") thought there were 300. . .Sorry! •Malinaccier• T/C 23:39, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Maxim(talk) 00:57, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Support: Simple status change from de-facto admin to de-jure admin. dr.ef.tymac 14:59, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Support - I have seen him around. Will make a great admin. -- Chris B • talk • contribs 17:23, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Support. When I've run across Pedro, I've always been impressed with this editor's thoughtfulness and thoroughness. --Fabrictramp 19:58, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Support per Chaser, essentially. – Black Falcon (Talk) 22:23, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Support See nothing to suggest will abuse the tools. Davewild 07:11, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  83. VOTE FOR- :) About time, I've been waiting for this. Good luck, you'll make a great admin. CattleGirl talk 08:35, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Support I have encountered this user and I attest that he is of high standing. He deserves the tools. Phgao 17:44, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Support Not only has Pedro waited until he met his own standards before allowing himself to be nominated, but he has been nothing but courteous and helpful to me and others. If anyone has ever been worthy of adminshipnessosity, it is Pedro. Biofoundationsoflanguage 18:29, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Support. I see Pedro as a very thoughtful and dedicated user who will make a great admin. I really don't see the problem with having a lot of co-nominations, can he help the fact that so many users strongly think he would make a good admin? Before you know it we will be seeing "Oppose, per to many supports" --Mschel 18:48, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Support. This user did something today that I think falls within the spirit of adminship; he improved an article and left two people better able to help Wikipedia (and no unhappy ones). I was one of them, and as a result of his thoughtful efforts, I have a deeper understanding of Wikipedia policy; the other editor, a newbie, will, I trust, remain to contribute. When this user says "Better to remove content that is clearly not right for Wikipedia yet retain the editor," he means it, and he makes it happen. Accounting4Taste 21:40, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Support Pedro is an amazing Wikipedian who I thought was definentely already an admin -Lemonflash(do something) 23:46, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Support Concerns raised in previous RFA cleared.Great track. Pharaoh of the Wizards 23:51, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Support. Zaxem 01:24, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Cliché I-thought-he-was-one support —[[Animum | talk]] 02:51, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Support - Late to the game on my part, but I have plenty of experience with Pedro to trust him. Hiberniantears 14:02, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Support. Sociable editor, conscientious, lots of energy. --Fire Star 火星 14:24, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Support. Why not?! Marlith T/C 16:41, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  95. Support. This editor does excellent work. Useight 21:09, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  96. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 17:55, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Oppose Sorry to break the pile on, but I cannot support this. Last 40 or so edits have been pretty much only about this RFA, with a couple of reverts. Mainspace has still not improved a lot from last time. And six co-nominations is unnecessary and pretty stupid - ONE is all that is needed, maybe two to get another opinion that the first may have missed, but six kills it really. Majorly (talk) 11:33, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your concerns about the edits in relation to the RfA, but I have to disagree about the co-noms. I do not believe that having many co-noms could be a downside, really they are just supporters who wish to do a little more to help. --DarkFalls talk 11:38, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry Majorly, but that is a disapointing oppose. You have failed to mention how you believe he will abuse the tools or even how he isn't qualified for adminship. Maybe he has got too many co-noms, but how is that Pedro's fault? Mainspace isn't brilliant, but he could certainly use the tools. Ryan Postlethwaite 11:38, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Majorly. The number of co-noms was overkill, but what would you have me do? I did not solicit them, they were placed there and then I was advised. In fact the three people who had offer to nominate prior to the creation of this RFA have not nominated due to the timing. Wikipedia is as community. To advise my nominators to remove their nominations because it looks "pretty stupid" would be a snub to them and a snub to that community. Pedro |  Chat  11:48, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd have let one user you trust nominate you. I suppose if any had nominated after the RFA had started that wouldn't have been your fault at all, but still, it's all you've been doing in your latest edits here. We disagree on this RFA, but even though I oppose (for now) I wish you the best of luck should you pass. No hard feelings. Majorly (talk) 11:55, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
With all the activity on my talk page and a weak (i.e. sporadic) internet connection at the moment, then yes this has regretfully had to be my focus. We've collaborated positively before and of course there are no hard feelings. Pedro |  Chat  11:58, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Six conominations is absolutely ridiculous, and totally stupid. But that's not Pedro's fault. --Deskana (talky) 16:46, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Forgive me for not having a clue, but I'm just curious why it is ridiculous and stupid for their to be six conominations.--U.S.A. (talk contribs) 02:22, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nitpicking, apparently. Don't see how... Dihydrogen Monoxide 06:24, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(To Dihydrogen Monoxide) It would probably help you in understanding that if you actually go through the comments on this page instead of dismissing it as "Nitpicking". - TwoOars (Rev) 10:16, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Oppose – I'm sorry but your mainspace editing doesn't meet my standards. Please try to remember that we are here to create an encyclopaedia, so the mainspace is the most important part of Wikipedia – I'll probably reconsider in three months after I've seen some article development. Matthew 11:33, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yo Matt, you do pose a very interesting point there, and it's something which I personally disagree with. We have writers who often don't need the tools - they provide the content, and then we have people that maintain the encyclopedia, who have the tools to excercise policy. The maintainers often don't have an amazing mainspace contribution list, but they are doing wikipedia a service by keeping it credible. Mainspace in many ways is the most important thing, but when it comes to adminship, it's often best to leave the mainspace contributors to get on with it. Ryan Postlethwaite 11:42, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I personally strongly believe that we have too many "janitors". It's my belief that users who are frequent contributors are going to be much better at solving edit wars, judging if something is notable and they are also less likely to burn out, in my opinion (as they can always go and do some editing if administrative tasks are causing them to get too hot.) Matthew 11:46, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough, there's plenty of other things to do apart from solve edit wars though, and some mundane tasks that article writers couldn't be bothered with. However, I respect your opinion and we'll just have to disagree. Ryan Postlethwaite 11:49, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Would you withhold support for someone based on too many, too good mainspace contribs? —AldeBaer 11:55, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
    Matthew, in your opinion, what is the perfect RfA candidate? --DarkFalls talk 12:14, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Myself :) (he nominated me). And of course, all those other users he has supported. Majorly (talk) 00:33, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec) It's not that complex to fathom Matthew's concerns. Essentially, Matthew believes that editors should be very active in non-automatic editing. Undoing and reverting edits is a very simple task. It's much appreciated, but honestly, it's not rocket science. I think if you don't have experience in hands-on encyclopedia building (writing articles, getting involved in article discussion), you're at a disadvantage, as an administrator, when you're asked to help mediate situations like edit wars or conflict disputes. The RfA process selects people based on their experiences and history of editing. Therefore, you can choose to oppose someone because they lack experience that would be necessary to help mediate dispute resolution in the future. Nishkid64 (talk) 00:36, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I just wanted to point out to everyone that I really think that for whatever reason that Matthew may oppose any RfA, we should respect his opinion no matter what reason or lack of reason he provides, just like anyone else.--U.S.A. (talk contribs) 02:07, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    In response to Nishkid, I'd like to point out that indeed, reverting isn't a difficult art in most cases. However, there's always the difficult reversion, the "perhaps vandalism," that takes some brains to revert. Someone has to do that. Someone has to have those brains. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 08:07, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You're faced with a tough decision once in a blue moon. Also, I perused through a few hundred of Pedro's reverts. As of yet, I have not found any difficult reversions. Nishkid64 (talk) 21:08, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - It is my opinion that RFA shouldn't be a "vote" but a discussion and anyone deciding to oppose or support the nominee should be willing to engage in discussions with people who disagree with his opinion. Convcerning the initial oppose, I agree that Pedro's edits could be improved by working on mainspace pages, however I don't believe that this alone is enough to oppose. User:Majorly points out that his last 40 or so edits were mostly RFA edits with a few reverts, I don't believe that this alone is enough information to conclude that this represents the majority of his edits. At some instances I spend reverting vandalism hundreds of edits at a time but this definitly doens't represent my edits in general. Taking a small sample of the last 50 or 100 or even 200 edits won't suffice for making a valid conclusion about the users editing habits or edits in general due to the flaws in small sample sizes. Concerning the fact that the user has 6 nominations, I don't see a problem with this. While it is indeed somewhat overkill, Pedro makes a good point that there is little he could do about it and it would have been pointless and rude to tell them that 6 was too many. It's hardly in itself a reason to oppose someone. Generally I only oppose RFAs when I believe there is clear evidence that the user in question would somehow abuse the tools. If a user has sufficient knowledge of policy and has a good history of assuming good faith, being civil and refraining from edit warring then that should be a sure support. The fact that a user lacks writing skills should not in itself disqualify him from being an admin as there is so much more to adminship than such. Generally it's not very difficult to understand policy and guidelines about article creation without actually writing articles and thus I don't believe this is a good reason to oppose either. Wikidudeman (talk) 15:19, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your opinion but I completely disagree with everything you said, unfortunately. As a non admin yourself, you perhaps don't realise how important articles are when you're an admin. Let me say also I completely agree with Twooars above - I do indeed find the number of nominations rather nauseating (and for the record I do blame Pedro for letting it happen, though not in bad faith), and I also agree with W.marsh below, about spending to much time with the RfA crowd. This RFA will pass for sure, so I'm uncertain why there's a need for long statements saying why you think I am wrong. Majorly (talk) 15:41, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It appears that your argument is a type of Ad hominem. You are saying that I do not understand the importance of writing articles as an administrator because I myself am not an administrator. This is a faulty argument. I understand the importance of writing articles in general, admin or not. However the difference between the importance of writing them as an admin and writing them as a non-admin aren't that different. The main point is comprehension of basic policy and procedures, which Pedro seems to understand. Wikidudeman (talk) 15:48, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    His distinct lack of article work/collaboration makes me think otherwise, sadly. Majorly (talk) 15:52, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    And that is no doubt something that he needs to work on, however I don't believe that in itself means he will abuse the admin tools nor does it mean that he doesn't know how to work with disputing editors. Wikidudeman (talk) 16:07, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That in itself perhaps, but I find the circumstances of this RFA quite unsatisfactory to be able to support it. Majorly (talk) 16:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Aside from your initial opposition post, What other circumstance are you refering to? Wikidudeman (talk) 16:54, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  1. I looked through his deleted edits and article edits for his speedy deletion tagging, and it all seems fine (even by my standards). He has tagged like 3 articles in the past 3 months that didn't end up getting deleted, and it looks like in each case he changed his mind either due to choosing to redirect the article or someone improving it. So no signs he'd misuse deletion abilities as an admin. But not much article writing, and 6 co-noms? That just makes it hard to support... it really is the hallmark of someone who spends too much time with the RFA crowd. I opposed last time but I see no basis for doing so this time. Maybe I'll finally support if there's a round 3... --W.marsh 14:17, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral Changed to Support. There is no evidence that he will use the tools incorrectly, but he doesn't have enough Projectspace edits. Too many co-nominations. •Malinaccier• T/C 00:33, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    779 Wikipedia-space edits isn't enough? Acalamari 01:52, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You're joking right? Nearly 800 project space edits, mostly to administrator related venues such as AIV and ANI, isn't enough? What next - no portal edits? And as he's said countless times above, he can't control the co-noms, nor should someone be punished for being popular. Please re-consider. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 04:13, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Malinaccier is entitled to his/her own opinion. There's no need to get frustrated. Honestly, this RfA is going to pass regardless of which way Malinaccier chooses to vote. Nishkid64 (talk) 20:59, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    By the way, Pedro can control the co-noms. Just Say No. If it worked for the War On Drugs, then it can surely work for RfA co-nominations. Nishkid64 (talk) 21:04, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Per my comment above, I agree with Nishkid.--U.S.A. (talk contribs) 23:31, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    For some odd reason, I thought he had around 300 projectspace edits. . .sorry everyone! (changing to support) •Malinaccier• T/C 23:39, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral After much thought, I think that opposing is unjustified for my reasoning. I'll abstain; but I cannot support due to the reasons I said already. Good luck though. Majorly (talk) 00:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
Category